thesis-kevin m. nash-no signatures · the tank company organization (from ... embedded diagnostic...

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California

THESIS

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LV 100-5 TANK ENGINE

by

Kevin M. Nash

March 2002

Thesis Advisor: Keebom Kang Associate Advisor: Michael Boudreau

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

i

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)

2. REPORT DATE March 2002

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Master’s Thesis

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: Cost Savings Associated with the LV 100-5 Tank Engine

6. AUTHOR(S) Nash, Kevin M.

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943-5000

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) N/A

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) The LV 100-5 turbine engine is the replacement for the AGT 1500 engine in the Abrams Main Battle Tank. The

AGT 1500, produced with the Abrams in 1980, has now aged to the point where the engine costs exceed 60% of the total

operations and support costs for the tank itself. In looking for a new engine, the Army also looked to improve the notoriously

poor fuel economy associated with the Abrams. Besides the tremendous reliability and maintenance improvements, the LV

100-5 is designed to be over 25% more fuel-efficient during movement and 50% more efficient at idle than the AGT 1500.

Prototypes of the LV 100-5 are due in May 2002 with full-rate production beginning in 2003.

The objective of the thesis is to accurately determine the savings in gallons and dollars by this significant reduction in

fuel usage. Research includes a detailed analysis of the LV 100-5 engine and a comparison to its predecessor, the AGT 1500,

followed by the analysis of savings in a combat scenario and its life cycle. The information collected in this thesis provides

further information for the Abrams Project Manager in his cost/benefit analysis.

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 77

14. SUBJECT TERMS M1A2, tank, engine, fuel

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

UL

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

ii


iii

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LV 100-5 TANK ENGINE

Kevin M. Nash

Major, United States Army B.A., Washington and Lee University, 1990

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT

from the

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL March 2002

Author: Kevin M. Nash

Approved by: Keebom Kang, Thesis Advisor

Michael Boudreau, Associate Advisor

Douglas A. Brook, Dean Graduate School of Business and Public Policy

iv


v

ABSTRACT The LV 100-5 turbine engine is the replacement for the AGT 1500 engine in the

Abrams Main Battle Tank. The AGT 1500, produced with the Abrams in 1980, has now

aged to the point where the engine costs exceed 60% of the total operations and support

costs for the tank itself. In looking for a new engine, the Army also looked to improve

the notoriously poor fuel economy associated with the Abrams. Besides the tremendous

reliability and maintenance improvements, the LV 100-5 is designed to be over 25%

more fuel-efficient during movement and 50% more efficient at idle than the AGT 1500.

Prototypes of the LV 100-5 are due in May 2002 with full-rate production beginning in

2003.

The objective of the thesis is to accurately determine the savings in gallons and

dollars by this significant reduction in fuel usage. Research includes a detailed analysis

of the LV 100-5 engine and a comparison to its predecessor, the AGT 1500, followed by

the analysis of savings in a combat scenario and its life cycle. The information collected

in this thesis provides further information for the Abrams Project Manager in his

cost/benefit analysis.

vi


vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 A. BACKGROUND.............................................................................................. 1 B. PURPOSE ........................................................................................................ 2 C. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................ 3 D. SCOPE.............................................................................................................. 4 E. METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................... 4 F. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY ............................................................ 4 G. EXPECTED BENEFITS OF THIS THESIS................................................ 5

II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 7 A. THE M1A1 / M1A2 TANK ............................................................................ 7

1. Overview .............................................................................................. 7 2. Status .................................................................................................... 9

B. AGT 1500 ENGINE ...................................................................................... 11 1. Overview ............................................................................................ 11 2. Status .................................................................................................. 13

C. LV 100-5 ENGINE ........................................................................................ 13 1. Overview ............................................................................................ 13 2. Status .................................................................................................. 16

D. SUMMARY.................................................................................................... 17

III. DATA............................................................................................................................... 19 A. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 19 B. FUEL COST .................................................................................................. 19

1. JP-8 as Army Common Fuel ............................................................ 19 2. Cost of JP-8 ........................................................................................ 19

C. ENGINE COMPARISON ............................................................................ 21 1. AGT 1500 ........................................................................................... 22 2. LV 100-5 ............................................................................................. 23

D. UNIT STRUCTURE ..................................................................................... 23 1. Tank Battalion................................................................................... 23 2. Battalion Support Platoon................................................................ 24

a. Support Platoon Equipment and Cost ................................... 24 b. Support Platoon Personnel Costs .......................................... 25 c. Support Platoon Doctrine ...................................................... 27

3. Forward Support Battalion.............................................................. 29 4. Doctrinal Positioning of Support Assets.......................................... 30

E. COMBAT SCENARIO................................................................................. 32 1. National Training Center ................................................................. 32 2. NTC Scenario..................................................................................... 33 3. Life Cycle Data .................................................................................. 34

F. UNDER ARMOR AUXILLARY POWER UNIT...................................... 35

viii

G. SUMMARY.................................................................................................... 36

IV. ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 39 A. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 39 B. FUEL COST SAVINGS................................................................................ 39

1. Battlefield Day Scenario ................................................................... 39 2. National Training Center Scenario ................................................. 42 3. Life Cycle Implications for the Tank Battalion.............................. 43

C. EFFECT ON OTHER UNITS USING BFD CALCULATIONS.............. 44 1. Battalion Support Platoon................................................................ 45 2. Forward Support Battalion.............................................................. 46

D. EFFECT ON OTHER UNITS USING NTC CALCULATIONS ............. 47 1. Battalion Support Platoon................................................................ 48 2. Forward Support Battalion.............................................................. 48

E. UNDER ARMOR AUXILLARY POWER UNIT...................................... 49 F. SUMMARY.................................................................................................... 49

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 51 A. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................ 51

1. Secondary Question I ........................................................................ 51 2. Secondary Question II ...................................................................... 52 3. Secondary Question III..................................................................... 53 4. Primary Question .............................................................................. 54

B. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DOD........................................................... 56 C. SUGGESTED FURTHER STUDIES.......................................................... 57

LIST OF REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 59

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST ........................................................................................ 63

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. M1A2 Tank. (From: GDLS, 2001) .................................................................. 7 Figure 2. M1A2 Technical Characteristics. (After: GDLS, 2001) .................................. 9 Figure 3. AIM XXI Program Overview. (From: PM Abrams Web page, 1999) ........... 11 Figure 4. The LV 100-5 Engine. (From: GE-Honeywell, 2001) .................................... 15 Figure 5. Diesel / Turbine Engine Comparison. (After: PM M1A1, 1999).................... 16 Figure 6. Battlefield Day Calculations. (After: PM M1A1, 1999)................................. 22 Figure 7. Battlefield Day Calculations. (After: PM M1A1, 1999)................................. 23 Figure 8. The Tank Company Organization (From: FM 17-15, 1999) .......................... 24 Figure 9. 77F Training Cost. (From: Atkinson, 2001) ................................................... 26 Figure 10. Service Station and Tailgate Resupply Operations. (From: FM 17-15,

1999)................................................................................................................ 28 Figure 11. FSB Organization. (From: FM 63-20, 2001) .................................................. 29 Figure 12. QM Support Co Organization. (From: FM 63-20, 2001)................................ 29 Figure 13. FSC Doctrinal Template. (From: FM 63-20-1, 2001)..................................... 30 Figure 14. 1-67 AR NTC Mileage. (After: Smith, 2001) ................................................. 34 Figure 15. Fuel Cost Savings. (After: DESC, 2001) ........................................................ 39 Figure 16. DSB Fuel Cost Savings. (After: DSB Report, 2001) ...................................... 40 Figure 17. Daily Savings in Various Deployment Scenarios. (After: DSB Report,

2001)................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 18. NTC Fuel Cost Savings. (After: DSB Report, 2001)...................................... 42 Figure 19. Savings in Less Optimal Deployment Conditions. (After: DSB Report,

2001)................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 20. Life Cycle Cost Savings Per Battalion. (After: DSB Report, 2001) ............... 44 Figure 21. BFD Gallons of Fuel Saved. (After: DSB Report, 2001)................................ 45 Figure 22. NTC Gallons of Fuel Saved. (After: DSB Report, 2001) ............................... 47

x


xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to acknowledge those individuals who provided their

support throughout the preparation of this thesis.

I would like to acknowledge my wife Michelle for her endless support and

devotion and my children Sean, Bailey, Allison, and Charles for their understanding and

patience.

I am also indebted to my thesis advisors, Dr. Keebom Kang and Professor Mike

Boudreau. Both provided expert advice and guidance throughout the thesis process.

xii


1

I. INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND The Abrams tank is the Main Battle Tank (MBT) for the United States Army. It

provides heavy armor superiority on the battlefield by destroying enemy forces on the

battlefield using mobility, firepower and shock-effect.

The 120mm main gun on the M1A1 and M1A2, combined with the powerful AGT 1500 horsepower turbine engine and heavy armor, make the Abrams tank capable of attacking or defending against large concentrations of heavy armor forces. Other features of the M1A1 include a rugged suspension system and a Nuclear, Biological and Chemical protection system. The M1A2 variant includes a Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer, an Improved Weapon Station, position navigation equipment, a distributed data and power architecture, embedded diagnostic system, and an improved fire control system. A radio interface unit allows the rapid transfer of digital situational data and overlays to compatible systems anywhere on the battlefield. (GDLS, 2001)

Production of new Abrams for the U. S. Army is complete. Instead of new

production, the Army has a requirement to upgrade over 1,100 older M1 tanks to the

M1A2 configuration. A multiyear procurement for 600 M1A2 upgrades, awarded in July

1996, are in their fifth year of deliveries. Further M1A2 improvements, called the

Systems Enhancement Package (SEP), are underway.

These enhance the M1A2 digital command and control capabilities, and add a second generation forward looking infrared system to the gunner and commander thermal sights. An under armor auxiliary power unit, new computer mass memory unit, color maps and displays are included in the enhancement package. (GDLS, 2001)

In addition to upgrades to the M1A2 SEP, the Armor community must also

upgrade its Legacy Force to communicate and effectively maneuver with the M1A2 SEP

force. In order to do so the Army is upgrading the rest of its M1A1 force to the M1A1D

through the Abrams Integrated Management Program for the 21st Century (AIM XXI).

AIM XXI is a refurbishment program for M1A1 tanks not being upgraded to the M1A2

configuration. Under AIM XXI, the M1A1 tanks are completely disassembled and

overhauled into “like new” condition.

2

B. PURPOSE In the next set of upgrades to the M1A2 and M1A1D, the Army is pursuing a

program whose objectives are to develop a propulsion system/power-pack (power-pack

refers to an engine that is integrated with a transmission) solution, which:

Significantly reduces the Operations and Support (O&S) cost burden of the Abrams Tank equipped with the existing AGT 1500 engine. The Army specifically established a long-term funding stream for the development, integration, production, and application of an Abrams Tank Propulsion System solution targeted at reducing the O&S burden of the existing system by obtaining a significant net savings. This program could have enormous implications for the Army in the long term because it could help save hundreds of millions of dollars in O&S costs. The tank engine is responsible for about two-thirds of the vehicle O&S costs. (Ogorkiewicz, 2001)

As noted in the quote above, the Army’s primary reason for upgrading to a new

engine is to combat the rising operations and support costs. The M1's current AGT 1500

gas turbine engine is the top cost driver for the tank program, making up some “64

percent of its overall sustainment costs.” (ST 101-6, 2001)

In September 2000, the team of Honeywell and General Electric was selected to

fully design and develop the LV 100-5 engine for the Abrams-Crusader Common Engine

(ACCE) program under a $195.6 million contract. Once developed, the cost for fielding

all required engines is expected to exceed three billion dollars. The Honeywell-GE team

will replace Honeywell's AGT 1500 gas turbine engine in the Army's M1 Abrams tanks

and Caterpillar's Perkins CV 12 diesel engine in the Crusader self-propelled howitzer.

The Army's Crusader program sought a new engine to help reduce overall weight

in the system to make it more deployable and the LV 100-5 offers significant weight

savings from the CV 12 diesel engine originally proposed.

At least 2,845 M1 tanks, including all active component tanks, are to be covered

by the ACCE program. Production of new engines for the Abrams is currently expected

to start in FY 03 and run eight years.

3

As previously noted, engine-related items account for 64% of the O&S costs in

the Abrams fleet. One of these components is fuel usage. One of the criteria for the new

engine was that it had to be more fuel-efficient than the AGT 1500. The spokesman for

Honeywell's Defense and Space division, Phoenix, said that the LV 100-5 engine is up to

30 percent more fuel efficient during movement and 50 percent more efficient at idle than

the current AGT 1500. A primary factor in the increased fuel economy is through the

use of an advanced full-authority digital engine control unit. (Heydrich, 2001)

A significant improvement in fuel economy may reduce the costs of supplying a

tank battalion. A Force XXI Tank Battalion in offensive operations under current

doctrine requires almost 43,000 gallons of JP-8 fuel per day. A current Forward Support

Battalion (FSB) quartermaster unit owns eleven 5,000-gallon tankers to support a

maneuver Brigade with fuel. These FSB assets provide support to the battalion’s twelve

2,500-gallon organic Support Platoon tankers. Manpower and materiel costs can be

reduced by the adoption of the more fuel-efficient LV100-5 engine.

C. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The primary research question of this thesis is:

What is the effect of a 25-30% fuel savings from the LV 100-5 M1A2 tank

engine on the logistical support of the M1A2 tanks in a combat and life cycle

scenarios and how might this effect overall force structure at Brigade level?

Secondary research questions include:

1. What are the histories and specifications of the AGT 1500 and LV 100-5

engines?

2. What is the true cost of delivery and handling of fuel and what are the

logistical support requirements in various scenarios?

3. What are the cost savings and other benefits obtained by upgrading to the LV

100-5 engine?

4

D. SCOPE This thesis includes: (1) an overview of the M1A1/M1A2 program, (2) an

estimate of the true cost to handle and deliver fuel, (3) a study of logistics required to

support a battalion of M1A1/M1A2 tanks in training and combat environments, (4) an

analysis of the possible cost savings achieved by moving to a more fuel-efficient engine,

and (5) a study of the effects of a significant fuel savings on the logistics tail of a Tank

Battalion. The thesis will conclude with an estimate of total savings in various

environments and suggestions for further improvements to the system.

E. METHODOLOGY The thesis research consisted of the following steps:

1. An extensive literature search of books, magazine articles, Unit SOPs, CD-

ROM systems, and other library information resources.

2. A thorough review of the current, AGT 1500, engine.

3. A review of the new, LV 100-5, engine and examine the physical components

that comprise the system.

4. A study of the “true cost” of handling and delivering fuel in various scenarios.

5. A study of the logistical support required to support a battalion of M1A1 /

M1A2 tanks.

6. An evaluation of the new engine in a three-week combat scenario based on

current data. Project the results of these data to their effect on logistical support.

7. An evaluation of the possible cost savings associated with a move to a more

fuel-efficient tank engine in various scenarios.

8. A summary of the benefits of implementing the new engine.

F. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY Chapter I, Introduction, outlines the status of the Abrams tank program and why

there is a need for a new tank engine. In addition, this chapter outlines the primary and

5

secondary research questions, the study’s scope and methodology, and presents an

overview of the thesis.

Chapter II, Background, provides an overview of the M1 tank and the two

respective engines.

Chapter III, Data, provides the physical combat logistics support requirements and

support unit costs needed to sustain a Tank Battalion. Further data analyze these support

requirements under combat and life cycle scenarios. It also includes estimates of the cost

to deliver and handle fuel in various scenarios.

Chapter IV, Analysis, looks at the amount of POL used from Chapter III to

support a combat and life cycle scenarios and estimates the possible cost savings with the

new engine. The analysis continues with a look at the gallons of fuel saved to find if a

change in MTOE is required to reflect the change in need.

Chapter V, Conclusions and Recommendations, summarizes the findings and

states the research limitations. Finally, recommendations for further study are offered.

G. EXPECTED BENEFITS OF THIS THESIS This study will provide information and supporting documentation requested by

the M1A2 Project Manager on the effectiveness of this sort of fuel efficiency on the

entire logistics system. This will serve as a means for justifying certain expense or

requesting further improvements.

6


7

II. BACKGROUND

A. THE M1A1 / M1A2 TANK

1. Overview This portion of the thesis is to provide all readers with a brief orientation to the

M1 tank, and related variants, to have a point of reference before discussing the tank’s

engine. The M1A1 is the Main Battle Tank of the US Army and the US Marine Corps.

The M1A1 armed with the Rheinmetall-designed 120-mm smoothbore gun “is possibly

the best (and most expensive) combination of firepower, mobility, and protection of any

tank in Western service.” (USAF Cadre Studies, 1996) The M1's performance in

Operation Desert Storm demonstrated a “convincing superiority over the export variant

of the Soviet-designed T-72 as well as greater reliability and mobility than had been

predicted by many analysts.” (USAF Cadre Studies, 1996) The following paragraphs

will summarize the tanks capabilities in terms of fire control, mobility, and survivability.

Figure 1. M1A2 Tank. (From: GDLS, 2001)

The M1A2 program updated the M1A1 with improvements in lethality, survivability and fighting ability required to defeat advanced threats. It is the Army's first digitized, direct fire, combat vehicle. It has a digital command and control system that provides situational awareness updates to all the other tanks in a unit. The internal architecture ties all electronic components in the tank together and provides increased survivability and supportability. (AUSA Greenbook, 2001)

The fire-control system is sophisticated, relatively simple to use, and a major

contributor to the tank's cost. The commander's independent thermal viewer gives it a

8

hunter-killer capacity where both the tank commander and gunner have the capability to

simultaneously scan for targets on different areas of the battlefield. In the M1A2,

“electronic complexity and integration many of the systems are linked through a Texas

Instruments digital data bus. A total of 21 microprocessors and one-half million lines of

code are involved.” (USAF Cadre Studies, 1996) The M1A2 also has improved on-board

diagnostics that allow the tank to troubleshoot itself without any additional special tools

or equipment.

The M1's mobility is achieved through a high power-to-weight ratio, conferred on

the tank by its 1,500-hp gas turbine engine. The engine is relatively compact, starts more

readily than a diesel, but has lower fuel mileage. In tanks produced after mid-1990, an

electronic fuel control system reduced fuel consumption by 18-20%. The Army claims

that the AGT 1500 has been much more reliable than a diesel, noting a 5-fold increase in

average hours of operation before an overhaul compared to the standard US tank diesel.

The M1 boasts a “Cadillac” suspension system that permits relatively high cross-

country speeds. “The M1's high weight (69 tons) limits the number of bridges it may

cross and restricts its air transportability to the Lockheed C-5 galaxy or C-17

Globemaster III (which can carry only one tank each).” (USAF Cadre Studies, 1996)

Protection and survivability is afforded by the Abrams' low silhouette and armor

developed as part of a classified "black" program. The plating is made of steel-encased

depleted uranium mesh, which is said to produce armor capable of defeating most threats

at the cost of an increase in weight.

Further survivability protection includes stowage of the main gun's ammunition in

a bustle separated from the rest of the turret by fast-closing access doors. “The bustle

design is intended to reduce the secondary effects of a hit in the turret by blocking the

explosion with the door and venting it through roof blow-out panels.” (USAF Cadre

Studies, 1996) Another survivability measure is the inclusion of a fire detection and

suppression system that covers both the crew and engine compartments.

9

Figure 2. M1A2 Technical Characteristics. (After: GDLS, 2001) 2. Status With the previous orientation to the tank and its capabilities, the researcher

wanted to provide an understanding of the entire Abrams tank program to put the engine

program in perspective.

Production of new Abrams tanks for the US Army is complete. In lieu of new

production the Army has a requirement to upgrade over 1,150 early model M1 tanks to

the M1A2 configuration. A multi-year procurement for 600 M1A2 upgrades, awarded in

July 1996, is in its fifth year deliveries. Initial fielding of the M1A2 to the Army's 1st

Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas, was completed in August 1998. Fielding to the 3rd

Weight 69.54 TonsMain

Armament 120mm M256 Cannon

Length (Gun Forward) 387 Inches

Coaxial Weapon 7.62 M240 MG

Turret Height93.5 Inches

Loader's Weapon

7.62 M240 MG on Skate Mount

Width 144 InchesCommander's

Weapon .50 Cal M2 MG

Ground Clearance 19 inches

Gas Turbine Engine 1500 HP

4 Speed Forward

2 Speed Reverse

Power to Weight Ratio

21.6 hp/ton

Cruising Range 265 Miles

Maximum Speed 42 mph

Obstacle Crossing 42 Inches

Cross Country Speed 30 mph

Vertical Trench 9 Feet

Speed on 10% Slope 17 mph NBC System

200 SCFM - Clean Cooled Air

Speed on 60% Slope 4.1 mph Crew 4 Men

Acceleration - (0 to 20 mph)

7.2 Seconds

M1A2 Abrams Technical Characteristics/Features

Ground Pressure 15.4 PSI

Hydro Kinetic Transmission

10

Armored Cavalry Regiment, Ft. Carson, Colorado was completed in 1999. Further

M1A2 improvements, called the Systems Enhancement Package (SEP), are underway.

“The M1A2 SEP is the backbone of the Army's first digitized division and the

counterattack corps of the Army's Legacy Force.” (AUSA Greenbook, 2001)

It has an integrated combat command and control (IC3), which incorporates Force XXI battle command brigade and below (FBCB2) to provide command and control and situational awareness. Its sights will use the latest thermal imaging system (second-generation FLIR) for increased lethality and survivability. It also includes improved electronics, taking advantage of the advances in the computer/electronics industry since the introduction of the M1A2. An under-armor auxiliary power unit, a new computerized mass-memory unit, color maps and displays are included in the enhancement package. A thermal management system will increase electronic reliability and decrease crew fatigue. (AUSA Greenbook, 2001)

Production deliveries of the M1A2 SEP began in September 1999. The 4th

Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Hood, Texas, fielded the M1A2 SEP in May 2000.

The First Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas began fielding in July 2001.

Although the M1A2 SEP is considered the centerpiece of the Army's ground force

digitization, budgetary limits will permit building only 1,150.

To achieve this figure, older M1 configurations will be rebuilt directly as M1A2 SEPs and M1A2s will be retrofitted to the SEP configuration. This approach leaves the Army with a large M1A1 fleet that will continue to be the mainstay of the tank inventory into the 21st century. Fleet sustainment has become a critical issue. The Army recently embraced the Abrams Integrated Management XXI program…to permit interoperability with digital forces, the Army also plans to provide the MIA1 an add-on communications package and the designation M1A1D. (Cameron, 1998)

The Abrams Integrated Management Program for the 21st Century (AIM XXI) is

a refurbishment program for M1A1 tanks not being upgraded to the M1A2 configuration.

Under AIM XXI, the M1A1 tanks are completely disassembled at the Anniston Army

Depot, Ala., and overhauled at the Lima Army Tank Plant, in Lima, Ohio (see Figure 3).

11

Figure 3. AIM XXI Program Overview. (From: PM Abrams Web page, 1999)

The AIM XXI program is necessary because the Army is required to sustain the

readiness of approximately 4,300 aging M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks in its active and

reserve units.

The AIM program is in its third year and has fielded 118 tanks to units at Fort Hood, Texas, and in Germany. Annual production now stands at 135 tanks per year and will continue until 2012. (AUSA Greenbook, 2001)

B. AGT 1500 ENGINE

1. Overview In the late 1970s the AGT 1500 was selected to power the M1 tank. The AGT

was the only successful application of a turbine engine in a military ground vehicle.

The concept was not new, having been continuously studied since the end of World War II. However, by the 1970s advances in gas turbine technology made possible a reliable engine of great power. Moreover, the experience of military helicopters equipped with turbines indicated that such engines possessed longer service lives and lower maintenance costs. Consequently, the Office of the Secretary of Defense mandated that M1 prototypes include the AGT 1500 gas turbine engine. (Cameron, 1998)

12

This engine provided 1500 horsepower and a 25:1 power to weight ratio,

compared to 13:1 for the M60A3 (the Abrams predecessor). The turbine also offered the

Army more flexibility in the logistics arena because it could run on multiple kinds of fuel.

Turbines can run on just about anything that will burn - car gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, marine fuel. That gives logisticians quite a bit of flexibility and interoperability, especially when the commander also operates helicopters, which run on jet fuel, in addition to operating tanks and trucks. You can supply one type of fuel to the battlefield and operate all the equipment. (Erwin, Nov 2000, p.12)

Over its history, the AGT 1500 engine has served the Abrams tank well. It

afforded a significant combat edge due to its reduced weight, power, and stealth. The

stealth comes from the turbine's low smoke and noise signatures, which make a vehicle

more survivable in combat.

Although a powerful and simple engine with few moving parts, the AGT 1500 is

an aging system that requires frequent and costly repair and requires an inordinate

amount of fuel. In regards to maintenance cost, the AGT 1500 currently constitutes over

half of the Abrams’ Operations and Support (O&S) costs and makes the Abrams the

Army’s most expensive ground system to operate. (DSB Report, 2001)

Since 1992, we have relied on overhauled engines to support the Armored Force. When an AGT 1500 is overhauled, not all the components are replaced; so with each subsequent overhaul, the engine loses more life. A new engine should deliver about 1,000 hours between depot maintenance events; we are now getting less than 500 hours out of the AGT 1500. The engine then has to be rebuilt, at a cost of approximately $250,000, but never regains its original performance. (Skaff, 2000)

In addressing the second area of concern, fuel consumption, the AGT was found

to consume fuel at a rate

…70% higher than previous diesel engine tanks. The operational consequences of adopting the AGT 1500 became evident when the M1 entered service in the 1980s. To move the combat vehicles of a US Army division equipped with M1s 100 miles required 217,000 gallons of fuel. Some 133,000 gallons were needed for a 1978 division equipped with somewhat lighter M-60 tanks with diesel engines. (Ogorkiewicz, 2001)

It is with this history that the program exists today. In order to confront some of

the existing problems, action needed to be taken.

13

2. Status Due to the skyrocketing O& S burden, “TSM Abrams upgraded the engine

requirements portion of the Abrams Operational Requirements Document (ORD) and

established key performance requirements related to improved fuel efficiency and

durability.” (Skaff, 2000) The Army selected the LV 100-5 over other competitors as the

replacement for the AGT 1500. PM Abrams began a comprehensive rebuild program to

sustain the armored force until fielding of the LV 100-5 in 2004. This sustainment

program is critical because the Army’s leadership understands that the Legacy Force is a

key component of our National Military Strategy. The Abrams is expected to be in the

Army until 2031, which means that it is “conceivable that second lieutenants in today's

Armor Basic Course could still command an Abrams battalion.” (Cameron, 1998)

This rebuild program is designed to completely rebuild the engine to “like new”

condition, offer a twelve-month warranty, and standardize repair while enhancing quality.

Through the AIM XXI program, Honeywell provides the parts, engineering support, and

technical experience to oversee the rebuild of the AGT 1500 turbine engines.

C. LV 100-5 ENGINE

1. Overview The Army’s primary program objectives are to develop a propulsion

system/power pack solution that

…significantly reduces the Total Ownership Cost (TOC) burden of the Abrams Tank equipped with the existing AGT 1500 engine. The Army specifically established a long-term funding stream for the development, integration, production, and application of an Abrams Tank Propulsion System solution targeted at reducing the O&S burden of the existing system by obtaining a significant net savings. (Ogorkiewicz, 2001)

The Crusader Artillery System was also in need of an engine with similar

performance to the tank engine. As a result, senior leaders directed that the Abrams Tank

and Crusader Artillery System use a common engine to leverage the programs and reduce

maintenance and support burdens on the combined arms team. (Erwin, 2001) In

November 2000, the Army awarded a contract to develop and replace our older AGT

14

1500 tank engines with a new Abrams/Crusader Common Engine (ACCE), the LV 100-5.

The Crusader artillery system had initially selected a diesel engine but due to General

Shinseki’s vision for a lighter and more deployable force, PM Crusader changed to the

lighter turbine engine. The US Army expects to save five billion dollars in operations

and support (O&S) costs by re-engining its M1 Abrams main battle tank with the LV

100-5 gas turbine and installing the same power plant in the Crusader self-propelled

howitzer.

The Army chose the LV 100-5 turbine engine offered by General Electric Aircraft

Engines and Honeywell Engines & Systems, who have a 50:50 partnership, for the $3

billion ACCE program. General Dynamics and Germany's MTU also competed with the

MT880-series engine, and Caterpillar with its Perkins CV12 engine.

The Army selected the LV 100-5 over the other competitors for the commonality

it would provide for the Abrams and Crusader platforms. “A common Abrams-Crusader

engine, also would result in efficiencies ranging from lower development costs,

economies of scale on the production line, fewer spares to stock and manage, shared costs

for tools and diagnostics, and common training skills.” (Erwin, 2001) Both programs

would share technical data and there would be one depot repair line. Efficiency also

would result, he said, from dealing with only one chain of supporting subcontractors. “In

Army parlance, the overall logistics footprint would be reduced for both systems."

(Erwin, 2001)

Honeywell records show that the LV 100-5 evolved from the -2 version, which

was built as a technology demonstrator for the Armored Systems Modernization program.

The LV100-2 was to have powered the M1 Block 3 tank, which was foreseen as entering

service in FY99 but was canceled following the end of the Cold War.

Honeywell representatives describe the LV 100-5 engine as:

A state-of-the-art gas turbine, that provides continual and smooth power, rapid acceleration, quick starting even in cold climates, no visible exhaust and quiet running for the Army's ground units. It is also a lightweight engine, at 2,300 pounds, and only 51 inches in length, providing considerable space and weight savings. Like the AGT 1500, it can operate on all grades of jet fuel, diesel and gasoline and can be easily interchanged between the Crusader and Abrams vehicles. The LV 100-5 has 43% fewer

15

parts than the AGT 1500, will reduce operations and support cost by a factor of three, and will increase Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) by a factor of four. (Business Wire, 2000)

Figure 4. The LV 100-5 Engine. (From: GE-Honeywell, 2001)

The LV 100-5 production version of the new engine shares 41% of its parts with

the AGT 1500, and has the same maximum power output of 1,500 horse power, with an

ultimate aim to achieve 3,000 hours between overhauls.

The use of commercial technology brings benefits in high reliability and low

weight. For example,

The starter motor is the same as that used with the auxiliary power unit on a Boeing 747 airliner. It weighs only about 18kg, and is mounted high in the engine bay to ease handling by maintainers with low body weights. Other advances include the use of an 'electronic logbook', to be used for trend monitoring and other applications, that stays with the engine throughout its life. (Jane’s IDF, 2000)

Additionally, Honeywell claims it can provide at least a 25% reduction in fuel

consumption (up to 50% at idle) without sacrificing current performance. Part of this

fuel saving is contributed by the use of an advanced full-authority digital engine control

unit. (Defense Daily, 2001)

No impact to

transmission LV100-5 with

X1100 3B

No

No Change to Air

SSmmaalllleerr FFoooottpprriinntt

No Change to Heat

No

16

Other performance improvements and upgrades from the LV 100-2 version,

provided by Honeywell representatives include;

- reduced inlet pressure loss - increased compressor flow and improved airfoil design - minimized leakage flows - elimination of second stage Variable Area Turbine Nozzle (VATN) - added bypass capability in the Engine Recovery Unit (ERU) - enhanced aero designs and lower inter-turbine duct losses in the High

Pressure/Low Pressure Turbine (HPT/LPT) (Heydrich, 2001)

Figure 5, below, outlines a comparison in weight and performance between the diesel

engine and the AGT 1500 and LV 100-5 engines.

High Performance

Diesel

AGT 1500 LV 100-5

Weight (lb) 3600 2500 2300

Fuel consumption

(lb / hp hour)

.36 .50 .40

Cooling Volume

Required (ft 3)

33 15 5.8

Cooling Weight

Required (lb)

1400 200 200

Figure 5. Diesel / Turbine Engine Comparison. (After: PM M1A1, 1999) 2. Status The initial contract awarded to Honeywell and GE amounts to $195.6 million and

covers development of the LV 100-5 engine to meet the ACCE program requirements.

The Abrams-Crusader Common Engine (ACCE) program passed its critical

design review in October 2001. The Abrams Product Manager outlines the engine

production in two phases. In phase 1, Honeywell is to produce 13 prototypes for testing.

17

These prototypes are due beginning in May 2002. In phase II, full production begins and

the request is for 2,709 engines beginning in 2003 and continuing for eight years.

In reporting completion of the critical design review (CDR), the Honeywell-GE

team claims to have made some significant improvements with the integration of the

engine to the vehicle, as well as nearly two-dozen small improvements to increase fuel

efficiency. The engine is currently 100 pounds under the weight requirement. The two

companies expect to achieve additional weight and fuel consumption savings from the

ongoing design refinement of the engine.

D. SUMMARY The M1A1/M1A2 is the Army’s Main Battle Tank. The M1A1, or a variant

thereof, is expected to be in operation through the year 2031. In order to improve

reliability and decrease life cycle cost, the Abrams Product Manager is overseeing the

development of a new engine, the LV 100-5 to replace the current AGT 1500. Besides a

fourfold increase in reliability, reduced weight, and commonality with the Crusader

artillery system, the LV 100-5 is expected to be significantly more fuel-efficient than its

predecessor. It is from this understanding of the systems involved that we move into a

detailed breakdown of the fuel economies involved and their application to a combat

scenario in an armored battalion.

18


19

III. DATA

A. INTRODUCTION This chapter presents and discusses the data collected to fully understand the cost

savings associated with the move from the AGT 1500 to the LV 100-5 tank engine. The

primary areas of consideration in this section are fuel cost, fuel handling cost, equipment

cost, personnel cost, and overall mileage savings. A brief discussion of each topic is

included with the pertinent data.

B. FUEL COST

1. JP-8 as Army Common Fuel In the 1980’s and early 90’s the Army used three fuels, gasoline, diesel, and jet

aircraft fuel. Today, Army policy dictates JP-8 (Jet Propulsion-8) as the single fuel on

the battlefield. JP-8 as a common fuel greatly simplifies fuel logistics, and permits

helicopter refueling in the forward battle area. JP-8 was selected over other fuels for

several different reasons. First, it has a minimum flash point of 100ºF, while gasoline

could ignite at temperatures below freezing. Second, JP-8 has greater availability and

better suitability for land-based equipment. Third,

JP-8 is slightly cheaper than diesel fuel. It is also more refined so it is less likely to plug filters or leave deposits in injection nozzles. It has better stability in long-term storage and burns cleaner. (Siuru, 1989)

The major difference between JP-8 and commercial airline fuel Jet A-1 is that JP-8 has

additives to prevent corrosion, fuel system icing, and static electricity. Diesel and gas

turbine engines that used to use commercial diesel fuels can burn JP-8. Originally it was

“diesel fuel’s fire resistance and the fuel economy of diesel engines…that originally led

the Army to adopt a diesel-powered ground vehicle fleet.” (Siuru, 1989)

2. Cost of JP-8 Information from the Defense Energy Support Center, indicate that the Standard

Price of Fuel for JP-8 in FY02 is $1.00/USG.

20

The Standard Price of Fuel is a tool that was created by DoD's fiscal managers to insulate the Military Services from the normal ups and downs of the fuel marketplace. It provides the Military Services and OSD with budget stability despite the commodity market swings, with gains or losses being absorbed by a revolving fund known as the Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF). The Standard Price is assembled by projecting of the price of fuel 18 months in the future and combining this with the budgeted cost of transporting, storing, and managing the government fuel system, including war reserve stocks. (DESC Website, 2001)

This cost of 1 dollar per gallon will help in making some of the more

straightforward savings analysis that are required.

A recent Defense Science Board (DSB) report on reducing DoD fuel burden

written in May 2001, however, claims that the Army neglects to account for the true costs

needed to issue fuel. They list the following statistics:

The Army directly uses $200 million of fuel per year or 300M gallons. The Army has 20,000 active POL soldiers @ $100,000 per annum and 40,000 reserve POL-related soldiers @ $30,000 per annum.

$ 200,000,000 fuel $2,000,000,000 active $1,200,000,000 reserve $3,400,000,000 Total Annual Cost of Army Fuel

Thus it costs the army about 16 times as much to deliver fuel as to purchase it. The ARL calculates that fuel actually costs the army about $13 per gallon, well to tank, in peacetime and at home. (DSB Report, 2001, p. 39)

Of particular note in this calculation by the DSB is the cost of $100,000 per year

to pay and support one active duty POL soldier. This number is taken as an average of

all enlisted soldiers and includes pay, benefits, food, and housing for one year. However,

it is interesting to note that this computation does not take into account the cost borne by

the other Army, Air Force, or Navy assets to transport fuel during deployments. It is easy

to picture in operations such as those underway in Afghanistan or Kosovo that such

transport costs may be indeed substantial. The DSB did amend their initial $13 per

gallon estimate by noting if the fuel had to be moved an additional 100 km past the

Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) the cost per gallon would grow to $25.

Additionally, the DSB went on to say:

21

The true cost of fuel is dominated by handling and distribution. As a result, the cost is very scenario dependant. Taking all of these factors into account, a reasonable estimate of the total cost of fuel when delivered to Army combat platforms is in the $10’s/gallon range. Over large distances the total cost would range from at least $40-$50 per gallon for overland transport up to more than $400 per gallon for air delivery using platforms with today’s capability. (DSB Report, 2001, p. 20)

Further study of the true cost of fuel will give estimates of $13, $50, and $400 to account

for different possible scenarios in which the Army may operate. This DSB perspective on

the “true cost” to issue a gallon of fuel will be another means of comparison to the actual

savings achieved by using the LV 100-5 over the AGT 1500. It is from this

understanding of the cost of the fuel for the M1A2 tank that we move into a further

comparison of the two engines.

C. ENGINE COMPARISON At Honeywell and the Tank Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM)

there are several methods to compare the performance of the AGT 1500 versus the LV

100-5. The method used for this part of the study was to use the comparison of fuel

economy of both engines in an equal Battlefield Day (BFD) scenario and measure the

results. The BFD scenario was generated by TACOM and members of the armor

community. They use historical data to generate an average number of hours for the tank

at idle, in movement, at rest etc.., and then calculate the amount of fuel used in gallons

for the day. In these calculations the scenario has the M1A2 tank at sea level with a

temperature of 59 degrees. The testing is conducted at Honeywell and confirmed by

TACOM and PM Abrams representatives.

22

1. AGT 1500

Figure 6. Battlefield Day Calculations. (After: PM M1A1, 1999)

As can be seen from the AGT 1500 sheet, the tank uses 578.5 gallons of fuel in

this BFD. It is this calculation that is compared to the LV 100-5 performance under the

same conditions that serves as the basis for future estimates.

M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank w/ AGT 1500 Battlefield Day (BFD) Fuel Calculations Sea Level, 59F - Vehicle Weight = 68.9 Tons

OPERATING TIME VEHICLE ROLLING ENGINE SPROCKET ENGINE BSFC FUEL FUEL TOTAL FUELCONDITION SPEED RESISTANCE SPEED HORSEPOWER HORSEPOWER FLOW FLOW USAGE

(HRS) (MPH) (LBf/TON) (RPM) (HP) (HP) (LB/HP-HR) (LB/HR) (GAL/HR) (GAL)

ENGINE START 0.01667 - - - - - - - - 0.3

ELECTRIC POWER 0.50 0 - 900 0 50 1.57 78.5 11.8 5.9

LOW IDLE 2.3333 0 - 900 0 50 1.57 78.5 11.8 27.4

HIGH IDLE 0.91667 0 - 1300 0 100 1.04 104.0 15.6 14.3

SECONDARY 3.40 24.9 125 1858 580 951 0.547 520.2 78.0 265.0ROADS

CROSS COUNTRY 3.3333 16.8 250 1855 774 1139 0.543 618.2 92.6 154.4

Silent Watch 1.5 0 - 900 0 50 1.57 78.5 11.8 17.6

APU (High Idle) 6 0 1300 0 100 1.04 104.0 15.6 93.5

TOTAL GALLONS 578.5Pertainent Variables:

Frontal Area (ft 2̂): 80Fuel Density (lb/gal): 6.673 (JP-8 Fuel) (DF-2 is 7.111)Vehicle Weight (tons): 68.9Overall System Efficiency: - Secondary: 0.61 Cross-country: 0.68Final Drive Ratio: 4.67Trans. Gear Ratio: - Secondary: 1.278 (4th Gear) Cross-country: 1.891 (3rd Gear)Sprocket Radius (in): 13.44

23

2. LV 100-5

Figure 7. Battlefield Day Calculations. (After: PM M1A1, 1999)

In the case of the LV 100-5, the BFD calculation due to various increases in

technology shows total gallons used as 435.9 over the same time period. This is an

overall 24.65% fuel savings in comparison to the AGT 1500. The magnitude of this

savings is further reflected in the 56% reduction in high-idle time fuel economy from

14.3 gallons used with the AGT 1500 to 6.3 gallons with the LV 100-5.

These numbers have been validated through Honeywell and PM Abrams

representatives in their most recent testing and Critical Design Review (CDR).

D. UNIT STRUCTURE

1. Tank Battalion An M1A2 Tank Battalion is the primary point of analysis for this research. A

tank battalion consists of three “line companies” and one Headquarters Company. As

noted below, each line company has three platoons of four tanks each plus two

headquarters tanks. This means there are fourteen tanks per line company.

M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank w/ LV 100-5 Battlefield Day (BFD) Fuel Calculations Sea Level, 59F - Vehicle Weight = 68.9 Tons

OPERATING TIME VEHICLE ROLLING ENGINE SPROCKET ENGINE BSFC FUEL FUEL TOTAL FUELCONDITION SPEED RESISTANCE SPEED HORSEPOWER HORSEPOWER FLOW FLOW USAGE

(HRS) (MPH) (LBf/TON) (RPM) (HP) (HP) (LB/HP-HR) (LB/HR) (GAL/HR) (GAL)

ENGINE START 0.01667 - - - - - - 120 16.9 0.3

ELECTRIC POWER 0.50 0 - 875 0 33.2 1.225 40.7 6.1 3.0

LOW IDLE 2.3333 0 - 875 0 41.6 1.094 45.5 6.8 15.9

HIGH IDLE 0.91667 0 - 875 0 42 1.088 45.7 6.8 6.3

SECONDARY 3.40 24.9 125 1858 580.10 754 0.424 319.7 47.9 162.9ROADS

CROSS COUNTRY 3.3333 16.8 250 1855 774 953 0.415 395.5 59.3 197.6

Silent Watch 1.5 0 - 875 0 28.3 1.383 39.1 5.9 8.8

APU (High Idle) 6 0 875 0 42 1.088 45.7 6.8 41.1

TOTAL GALLONS 435.9Pertainent Variables:

Frontal Area (ft^2): 80Fuel Density (lb/gal): 6.673 (JP-8 Fuel) (DF-2 is 7.111)Vehicle Weight (tons): 68.9Overall System Efficiency: - Secondary: 0.699 Cross-country: 0.73Final Drive Ratio: 4.67Trans. Gear Ratio: - Secondary: 1.278 (4th Gear) Cross-country: 1.891 (3rd Gear)Sprocket Radius (in): 13.44

24

Figure 8. The Tank Company Organization (From: FM 17-15, 1999)

When adding each of the company’s tanks plus the two battalion headquarters tanks (one

for the Commander and one for the Operations Officer) together there are a total of forty-

four tanks in an M1A2 battalion. Although the battalion rarely operates “pure” in a

combat environment, the researcher has chosen to consider the effects of the move to a

more fuel-efficient engine from this aspect to simplify analysis. Any change in fuel

economies or savings will be reflected as how it impacts a Tank Battalion of 44 tanks.

To support itself, the Tank Battalion maintains a Headquarters Company

(HHC). The HHC provides all of the support assets necessary to support combat

operations. Of particular interest is the Battalion Support Platoon, which will be

described in the following section.

2. Battalion Support Platoon

a. Support Platoon Equipment and Cost As mentioned above, within each Tank Battalion is a Headquarters

Company (HHC). Within each HHC, there is a Battalion Support Platoon that provides

all of the fuel, packaged products, ammunition, and barrier material for the battalion. Of

specific interest for this research is the fact that the M1A1 battalion is authorized twelve

M978 High Mobility Tactical Trucks (HEMTT) to supply JP-8 fuel to the battalion. The

M1A2 battalion under CSS redesign has only nine fuelers per battalion.

25

The Heavy Expanded-Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT) is the workhorse of Army combat divisions, providing combat vehicles and weapons systems. C-130 transportable, it is the key combat service support enabler for the BCT. The 10-ton, eight-wheel drive family of vehicles is designed to operate in any climatic condition. There are six basic configurations of the HEMTT-series trucks. (AUSA Greenbook, 2001)

Although the capacity of each of these fuelers is 2,500 gallons, common

practice in units is to carry 2,200 gallons each for safety reasons. (Gilliam, 2001) This

means that the battalion support platoon can, at any one time, carry a total of 26,400

gallons of JP-8 to support the M1A1 battalion or 19,800 gallons for the M1A2 battalion

in CSS redesign. The current cost of one M978 HEMTT and its associated Basic Issue

Items (BII) is $237,210. (Gilliam, 2001)

The Life Cycle Cost (LCC) associated with the M978 is estimate at $3

million. This cost is spread over the 20-year life cycle of the truck. Included in this cost

are a yearly O&S cost estimated at $5 thousand. (Nordhougen, 2002)

b. Support Platoon Personnel Costs The fuel operators for the M978 are designated with the Military

Occupational Specialty (MOS) of 77F. Each support platoon is authorized two 77F

personnel for each of their M978 trucks. This means that there are a total of 24 77F

personnel directly employed in the business of fuel handling for an M1A1 tank battalion

during combat operations. In the M1A2 battalion this means there are 18 77F personnel

available for fuel missions. The Defense Science Board Report noted earlier in this

chapter used an estimate of $100,000 per year as the cost to support one fuel operator for

one year. (DSB Report, 2001)

The cost to train these 77F operators at their Advanced Individual

Training is outlined in Figure 9 below. The total cost of the eight-week course for one

77F soldier is $12,672.

26

Figure 9. 77F Training Cost. (From: Atkinson, 2001)

This training course is conducted at Fort Lee, Virginia and is briefly

described as:

The Basic Petroleum Logistics Division (BPLD) provides initial technical and tactical petroleum training to Petroleum Supply Specialist (77F10), Advanced Individual Training (AIT) soldiers to meet the worldwide petroleum needs of the United States Army. The course consists of eight weeks with four days of extensive hands-on training on U.S. Army petroleum-related equipment. Within this curriculum, they train over 3,000 soldiers. (Hudgins, 2001)

Some of the training subjects covered in the classroom and hands-on

environment include: petroleum supply operations, environmental standards and spill

contingency, safety, health hazards, fire fighting and first aid, supply point equipment and

operations, and operation of various petroleum fueling vehicles. (Hudgins, 2001)

Over the 20-year life cycle of a HEMTT truck it is important to note that

such training costs are recurring. It is anticipated that new operators per HEMTT are

trained every four years. Therefore the recurring training cost over a twenty- year period

for two operators per truck is $126,720.

Ft Lee, VA 8.8 Course Length (weeks)Quartermaster School 4 Flying HoursPETROLEUM SUPPLY SPECIALIST E-1 Modal Grade821-77F10 1,916 Equivalent Graduates

73 Frequency1,281 ICH

Mil Pay Civ OMA NP Other Total

DIRECT COSTS

1. Instruction 2,087 327 99 2,5142. Flying Costs 3 33. Overhead 553 345 356 1,2544. Ammunition 1 1

5. Sub-Total 2,641 672 458 1 3,771

6. Student Costs Pay & Allowances 5,157 5,157 Per Diem Travel 75 75

7. Sub-Total 5,232 5,232

8. TOTAL DIRECT 7,873 672 458 1 9,003

INDIRECT COSTS

9. Base Support 375 1,011 1,327 29 2,74210. Medical Support 199 127 416 74211. Family Housing 26 158 184

12. TOTAL INDIRECT 574 1,164 1,743 188 3,669

13. TOTAL DIRECT + INDIRECT 8,447 1,836 2,201 188 12,672

14. DIRECT a. Fixed 869 182 88 1,139 b. Variable 7,003 490 370 1 7,86415. DIRECT + INDIRECT a. Fixed 1,286 999 1,311 179 3,776 b. Variable 7,161 837 890 10 8,896

TOTAL per EGRAD $12,672

Resident Training Cost per GraduateFY00 Training/FY02 Dollars

Fixed & Variable Costs

27

c. Support Platoon Doctrine The Battalion Support Platoon fuels the force using doctrine that urges

them to “fuel forward” in order to support the high consumption M1 tanks. Normally

fuel is delivered to the tank battalion through a standard logistics package (LOGPAC).

The battalion standard operating procedure establishes this standard LOGPAC. Normally,

a company team LOGPAC will consist of a unit supply truck (with food, water, mail,

other supplies, and replacement personnel), M978 fuelers with bulk fuel and other

packaged fuel products (oils and lubricants), and M977 ammunition trucks (a mix of

ammunition for the weapon systems of each company). Other vehicles may be added to

carry additional supplies/personnel.

LOGPACs are organized in the field trains by the company supply

sergeant under supervision of the HHC commander and the Support Platoon Leader.

LOGPACs are organized for each company team in the TF and moved forward on at least

a routine resupply, usually twice a day. Special LOGPACs are organized and dispatched

as required by the tactical situation and logistical demands.

When possible, all LOGPACs move forward as a march-unit under the

control of the Support Platoon Leader. The LOGPACs move along the main supply route

(MSR) to a logistical release point (LRP), where the unit 1SG or a unit guide takes

control of the company LOGPAC and brings it to the company area.

This results in tailgate or service station resupply methods as described in

Figure 10.

28

Figure 10. Service Station and Tailgate Resupply Operations. (From: FM 17-15, 1999)

After completing resupply at the company, the LOGPAC follows unit

SOP and returns to the LRP or to the field trains.

This resupply of each company in the battalion encompasses the travel

time forward to the tank positions then the total time needed to actually dispense fuel.

This LOGPAC is usually conducted in conjunction with other logistics like food and

takes a total time of about 3 hours per mission. The distance traveled in this time frame

is a round trip of anywhere from 16 – 24 kilometers based on the mission and terrain.

This doctrine forces the Support Platoon Leader to supply the tanks at

forward locations then consolidating (via crossload) remaining fuel and moving to a rear

area with empty HEMTTs for refuel from the Forward Support Battalion (discussed

below). The total time required to travel to the resupply point and back varies greatly

but can be fairly estimated at 3 hours per mission.

When looking at possible savings due to increased fuel efficiency for a

tank the analysis must also include a look at the amount of time that can be saved by

logistical and combat units with less fuel missions. In short, a Battalion Support Platoon

can save a total of six hours if it could reduce it’s number of fuel missions to a tank

company by one.

29

3. Forward Support Battalion The Forward Support Battalion is the primary supplier of all classes of supply for

a maneuver Brigade.

Figure 11. FSB Organization. (From: FM 63-20, 2001)

As can be noted from the above diagram, the FSB provides maintenance, medical,

and other supplies. Of particular interest to our study is the ability of the FSB to support

the Tank Battalion Support Platoon with fuel. The company within the Forward Support

Battalion responsible for this mission is the Quartermaster Support Company. The

Company structure is listed below:

Figure 12. QM Support Co Organization. (From: FM 63-20, 2001)

In order to provide fuel to the Brigade an FSB has a petroleum section (see figure)

that has eleven M969 fuel tankers. The M931 Five-Ton tractor moves these tankers.

30

These M969 tankers have a 5,000-gallon capacity but generally carry 3,500 for

safety purposes. This means there are a total of 38,500 gallons available at any one time

in the FSB to support the Brigade. The M969 trucks plus all associated BII have a

current cost of $90,610 for the trailer and a cost of $86,205 for each M931A2 Five-Ton

prime mover. The Life Cycle Costs (LCC) for each of these vehicles is estimated to be 2

million each over a 20-year life cycle. This includes yearly O&S costs estimated at $10

thousand each. (Nordhougen, 2002)

Like the Battalion Support Platoon, each of the M969 trucks is to be manned by

two 77F personnel during maneuver operations. This brings the total number of fuel

operators in the FSB to 22 in order to keep all of the units in the Brigade properly

supplied with fuel. The recurring training costs are identical to those required for the

M978 crews. Thus, the recurring training cost over a twenty-year period for two

operators per truck is $126,720.

4. Doctrinal Positioning of Support Assets

FSC DOCTRINAL TEMPLATEFSC DOCTRINAL TEMPLATE

1SGCRT(M88/FRS-H)CMT(AMB)

0.5 - 1 KmFSC FORWARDTASK FORCE SUPPORT

AREA (TFSA)

FWDSPT

COMBAT TRAINS COMMANDPOST (CTCP)

SPTOPS

TMTRECOVERY

CL V

CL IIISPT

AMB

8 - 12 Km

FSC CDR/1SGBN/TF S1/S4(-)

(-)

Mission: The FSC(-) provides all classes ofsupply, minus Class VIII, and fieldmaintenance (ORG/DS) to its supportedBN/TF. The FSC is a multi-functional unitthat includes a S&T and maintenanceplatoon. The FSC is as mobile as the TF.

TFSA

Mission: The FSC Forward developslogistical forecasts at the CTCP (FSC SPTOPS/BN S4). This management functionforward plus situational awareness equalsprecision logistics. Assets placed forwardare tailored based on METT-TC.

CRT

Mission: The CRT from the FSCprovides field maintenance (ORG/DS)and recovery capability to the CO/TM.It provides limited LRU diagnosis andrepair for track & wheeled vehicles.CRT OPCON to the CO/TM 1SG.

UMCP

CTCP

CO Supply Sergeants(Build LOGPACS)

(-)

(-) MAINT

MCS

RecoverySection

HQ Section

Maint &Service

HQSection

FoodService

DistroSection

FSC Forward

MVR

MVR

ULLSSAMS

LRP

BN/TFTOC



FRS-HM 88’s

BN/TF S1/S-4(-)

1 - 4 Km

CCP

Figure 13. FSC Doctrinal Template. (From: FM 63-20-1, 2001)

31

The figure above provides a picture of all of the positioning of the aforementioned

items. The Tank Battalion support assets are normally echeloned into Company Trains,

Battalion Combat Trains, and Battalion Field Trains.

The Combat Trains are organized to provide immediate critical support for the

combat operation. They can be positioned anywhere from 1-4 kilometers from the line

units. Of interest to this study are the M978 fuelers, usually 1 to 2, that are kept at the

Combat Trains for emergency resupply purposes. The Combat Trains also include the

Combat Trains CP (CTCP), the Unit Maintenance Command Post (UMCP), the Battalion

Aid Station (BAS), the decontamination vehicle, some supply ammunition vehicles, and

some supporting elements from the FSB.

The Battalion Field Trains are normally in the Brigade Support Area (BSA) and

under the control of the HHC commander, who coordinates with the Brigade S4 and FSB

commander for security and positioning. Based on this doctrine, the FSB and the

Battalion Field Trains, which include the bulk of the Battalion Support Platoon fuel

assets, are co-located in the BSA.

The FSB positions its fuelers between the Brigade Support Area and the Corps

Support assets that resupply the FSB fuelers. So after completing resupply at the

battalion level, the Battalion Support Platoon moves its empty assets back another 5

kilometers to the FSB resupply tankers for refuel (not shown in the doctrinal template

above). This refuel of Support Platoon assets takes FSB petroleum unit about 2-3 hours

per mission.

This doctrinal template is provided by the researcher to ensure understanding of

the distances and time required for resupply during combat operations. The distance

traveled forward by the fueler followed with a refuel at a Tank Company position with

the tailgate or service station method and the subsequent return trip and resupply are time

and manpower intensive operations. Any reduction in the frequency of such operations

allows logistics assets to be focused on other missions and combat units to concentrate on

their combat missions.

32

E. COMBAT SCENARIO

1. National Training Center The National Training Center (NTC) is located in the Mojave Desert at Fort

Irwin, California. The NTC is the U.S. Army's premier training facility worldwide. The

NTC mission is to provide realistic joint and combined arms training focused on

developing soldiers, leaders, and units of America's Army for success on the 21st century

battlefield. (CTC Handbook, 2001) Fort Irwin's size makes it ideal for conducting

realistic, large-scale, combined arms training operations. The base encompasses

approximately 643,000 acres of land - roughly the size of the state of Rhode Island.

About 321,000 acres of this land are suitable for maneuver areas and ranges. (CTC

Handbook, 2001)

The NTC is uniquely equipped and organized to provide tough, realistic combined arms training according to joint operations doctrine for brigades/ regiments in a mid- to high-intensity environment, while retaining the training feedback and analysis/focus at brigade level. Annually, 10 brigade combat teams consisting of from four to seven battalion and squadron task forces (averaging approximately 5000 soldiers each rotation, to include brigade slice) rotate through the NTC for intensive combat training against an OPFOR highly trained in threat doctrine. During their 28-day stay at Fort Irwin, typical units experience 7 days of reception, staging, onward movement and integration (RSOI) operations, 14 days of tactical operations that include both force-on-force and live-fire training and 7 days of combat force regeneration. Units, equipped with Weapons Engagement Simulation Systems, conduct training in areas containing sophisticated data collection and recording systems that provide a record of engagement for review, analysis, and use in planning and conducting training upon return to home station. (CTC Handbook, 2001, p. 3-D-2)

The main emphasis of the training at NTC is the combined arms battalion task

forces deployed in a brigade maneuver box. Characteristics of the NTC force-on-force

battlefield include:

• Complicated battlefield scenarios • Open desert type terrain. • Extended Lines of Communication. • Mid- to high-intensity missions. (CTC Handbook, 2001 p. 3-D-2)

33

2. NTC Scenario The researcher gathered two sets of information on rotational units at the National

Training Center. The first information was supplied by a contractor working at the NTC

who tracked the average miles and hours used in a typical day rotation. Larry Miller of

Cobro Corporation reported that the “average tank accumulates 325 miles and 100 hours

during a typical rotation.” (Miller, 2001) This averages out to 3.25 miles per hour of

operation. The data provided by Cobro Corporation was recommended by personnel at

the United States Army Material Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA) who used to track

mileage and hour data when the NTC maintained a fleet of tanks for use by rotational

units. The NTC no longer maintains its own fleet and units bring their own tanks from

their respective posts via railroad.

The researcher collected the second set of data from 1-67 Armor Battalion at Fort

Hood, Texas who had an NTC rotation earlier this year (May 2001). The 1-67 AR

Battalion maneuvered for twenty-one days in mock combat operations at the NTC with

their M1A2 tanks. The length of their maneuver rotation exceeded those of other units by

seven days due to the fact that this unit is part of the digitized brigade at Fort Hood and

they needed extra time to work out doctrinal methods and validate their equipment.

These twenty-one days included several offensive and defensive scenarios that may be

encountered by units in “real-world” desert warfare scenarios. The data collected by the

Battalion Executive Officer for this timeframe are noted in Figure 14 below.

34

Figure 14. 1-67 AR NTC Mileage. (After: Smith, 2001)

This mileage data show that the average tank traveled 638 miles during the

twenty-one day exercise. Although the actual number of hours used by each tank was not

available, it can be inferred from the Cobro Corporation representative that the hours run

were 196.31 hours (638 / 3.25).

These are the closest data we can accurately gather on a tank maneuvering in a

wartime environment. It is with these data that the researcher wants to compare with

similar tanks hypothetically using the LV 100-5 engine and measure the possible savings.

3. Life Cycle Data The researcher wanted to compare the fuel usage in a ten-year period for an

average Tank Battalion using the AGT 1500 with one hypothetically using the LV 100-5.

The researcher contacted the Executive Officer of 1-68 Armor at Fort Carson, Colorado.

1-68 Armor is an M1A1 Tank Battalion. The XO indicated that 1-68 tanks traveled an

average of “640 miles per year” (Wawro, 2002) plus an additional “325 miles” (Miller,

1-67 AR NTC OPTEMPO MILEAGE April - May 2001

TANK BUMPER #

NTC KM TRAVELED

TANK BUMPER #

NTC KM TRAVELED

TANK BUMPER #

NTC KM TRAVELED

A11 933 B11 1121 C11 935A12 1095 B12 1079 C12 1246A13 1007 B13 1311 C13 1335A14 1127 B14 1048 C14 763A21 1120 B21 507 C21 1115A22 881 B22 761 C22 841A23 723 B23 1574 C23 1142A24 1047 B24 971 C24 819A31 1088 B31 1117 C31 943A32 1125 B32 634 C32 1163A33 1012 B33 864 C33 1025A34 2241 B34 767 C34 821A65 968 B65 1414 C65 1517A66 905 B66 931 C66 474

HQ63 659HQ66 1016Total 45185

Avg KM 1026.93182Avg Miles 638.106

35

2001) during their National Training Center Rotation. This indicates that each tank

travels approximately 965 miles during a typical year. When multiplied by the 44 tanks

in the battalion this total 42,460 miles traveled per year. Over a ten-year period,

assuming a constant OPTEMPO, this totals to 424,600 miles for the battalion. If the LV

100-5 is fielded in a battalion in 2006 and the tank stays in service until 2031, the

battalion will accumulate 1,061,500 miles over those 25 years. Using the ten and 25-year

mileage estimates, the researcher will analyze the cost savings possible using the LV 100-

5 over the AGT 1500.

F. UNDER ARMOR AUXILLARY POWER UNIT One item not considered in collection of these data is the addition of the Under

Armor Auxiliary Power Unit (UAAPU).

The UAAPU is located in the left rear of the vehicle chassis and displaces 55 gallons of fuel. This under armor protection offers the same protection to the APU as it does the main engine. The APU is a turbine unit, providing both electrical and hydraulic power to the entire tank, and is operated from within the driver’s compartment. In addition, the APU receives its fuel from the tank’s main fuel system, eliminating the need to carry special fuel. The UAAPU provides electrical and hydraulic power during mounted surveillance and aids reducing main engine operating hours and vehicle fuel consumption while providing electrical power to charge the main batteries. (Skaff, 2000)

The reason for having a UAAPU is that as electrical demands increase, especially

in a Mounted Surveillance mode (where all systems powered up but the main engine

cannot be operated) the power drain from these systems requires the main engine to

operate every hour for 15 minutes to recharge the batteries. “Therefore, an auxiliary

power source is required to reduce noise and fuel consumption. Presently the Army has

an externally mounted auxiliary power unit for the M1A1 series tank that provides

electrical power only. However, the M1A2 SEP has increased electrical and hydraulic

requirements that must be maintained during mounted surveillance.” (Skaff, 2000)

The primary benefits of the UAAPU are that it provides 6 kW of electrical power,

provides electric power to charge the main batteries, reduces main engine operating

hours, and reduces fuel consumption by 8.5 gallons per hour.

36

As noted by MAJ Gregory M. Parrish the former Executive Officer of 1-67

Armor, “the tanks were fielded minus the UAAPU. We lost eighty gallons of fuel

capacity to make room for the APU and we discovered that with the engine shut down

and all of the digital systems running, we had an average battery life of 18-20 minutes

before being forced to restart the engine.”

This lack of an UAAPU for 1-67 AR tanks and when considering performance of

the LV 100-5 and AGT 1500 will reflect consumption significantly higher than if the

UAAPU were included.

G. SUMMARY This chapter lists all pertinent data to calculate possible fuel savings with a more

fuel-efficient engine. The chapter started with a listing of the current cost of tank fuel.

Of particular note was a Defense Science Board Report estimate that calculated the cost

of one POL soldier for one year was $100,000. This calculation was figured in with

Reserve unit personnel costs and fuel costs to get a cost of $13 per gallon to fuel Army

equipment. Further study of the true cost of fuel gave estimates ranging from $50 to

$400 to account for different possible scenarios in which the Army may operate. These

numbers stand in contrast to the simple calculation of $1 per gallon in fuel cost at the

pump for DoD.

Next there was a comparison between the AGT 1500 and the LV 100-5 engines in

a typical battlefield day (BFD) scenario. This BFD scenario outlines the proven

capability and performance of both the LV 100-5 and the AGT 1500 and confirms a

24.65% fuel savings with the LV 100-5.

The researcher included the numbers and cost of fueling equipment at the Brigade

and below level to use as reference for future analysis. If warranted, the number of

personnel and equipment could be adjusted based on the amount of fuel saved over time.

The chapter included data from a recent National Training Center rotation for a

maneuver battalion to provide a “wartime” scenario for analysis. These data are used as a

point of reference to calculate actual savings in a combat environment and can be

compared to the laboratory BFD calculations.

37

Included in these data are a summary of mileage traveled over a one-year period

for a Tank Battalion. This mileage was then projected out over a ten and a 25-year period

for purposes of cost analysis in the following chapter.

One limitation on data was the lack of the UAAPU for maneuver units, which

causes units to use more fuel than they would otherwise. The inclusion of the UAAPU

for future studies will be recommended as a point for future studies.

It is with these data in hand that the researcher moves into his analysis of the data.

38


39

IV. ANALYSIS

A. INTRODUCTION This chapter analyzes the data presented in Chapter III. First, the researcher plans

to analyze the data from the Battlefield Day (BFD) calculations, then from the actual data

collected from the rotational unit at the National Training Center, and finally from an

average Tank Battalion over a one-year time period.

B. FUEL COST SAVINGS

1. Battlefield Day Scenario According to the data in Figures 6 and 7, the AGT 1500 uses 578.5 gallons of fuel

in this Battlefield Day (BFD). In the case of the LV 100-5, the BFD calculation due to

various increases in technology shows total gallons used as 435.9 over the same time

period. This is an overall 24.65% fuel savings in comparison to the AGT 1500. The

magnitude of this savings is further reflected in the 56% reduction in high-idle time fuel

economy from 14.3 gallons used with the AGT 1500 to 6.3 gallons with the LV 100-5.

Figure 15. Fuel Cost Savings. (After: DESC, 2001)

Savings Calculated Using $1/Gallon Fuel Estimate

Gallons Cost JP/gal Cost / BFDAGT 1500 578.5 1.00$ 578.50$

LV 100-5 435.9 1.00$ 435.90$

Cost Savings w/LV 100-5

per BFD 142.60$

40

Figure 15 notes that there is a straight $142.60 savings per tank during one BFD

scenario when considering the cost of fuel at $1 per US gallon. When considered across

an entire battalion of forty-four tanks the savings is $6,274.40 per BFD.

The amount listed in Figure 16, below, reflects the conservative Defense Science

Board cost estimate of $13 per gallon from “well to tank.”

Figure 16. DSB Fuel Cost Savings. (After: DSB Report, 2001)

This cost reflects a savings of $1,854 per tank in a BFD scenario. When this cost

is adjusted to reflect the savings across a battalion of forty-four tanks, the savings is

$81,567 per day. If the battalion sustained offensive operations for a three-day period,

the savings jumps to $244,702 for the Army. It is important to remember that this

estimate of $13 per gallon does not include other deployment scenarios in which a tank

battalion may operate. In Figure 17, the DSB estimate is modified to fit other

deployment scenarios where costs per gallon increase from $50 to $400 per gallon. The

$50 per gallon estimate anticipates using 5,000-gallon tankers to resupply a unit 400km

beyond the FEBA, whereas the $400 per gallon estimate anticipates resupply by CH-47

to a force 400km beyond the FEBA. (DSB Report, 2001, p. 19)

Savings Using Defense Science Board Estimate of $13 Gallon

Gallons Cost JP/gal Cost / BFDAGT 1500 578.5 13.00$ 7,521$

LV 100-5 435.9 13.00$ 5,667$

DSB Cost Savings Estimate per BFD 1,854$

41

Figure 17. Daily Savings in Various Deployment Scenarios. (After: DSB Report, 2001)

Under these varying scenarios, the 24.65% increase in fuel efficiency with the LV

100-5 under the BFD OPTEMPO, cause savings to leap upwards of $57,000 per day.

Granted, the $400 per gallon handling cost is extreme, but not impossible. The $50 cost

per gallon for handling is altogether reasonable given the considerations in the DSB

report. If armor battalions had to operate in landlocked Afghanistan, for example, the

possible costs of trucking in fuel from port, through Pakistan, to units in need make this

figure plausible

The problem with the BFD estimates is that they seem to overstate mileage and

hours used per day when compared to the NTC data. Whereas the BFD scenario

calculates that a tank travels 140.65 miles per day, data from the NTC calculates about 30

miles per day (638 miles / 21 days) or 23 miles per day (325 miles / 21 days) for other

units. In terms of hours, the BFD scenario accumulates 12 hours while moving the

140.65 miles. The average tank at the NTC however ran an average of 9.35 hours

(196.31 hrs / 21 days) per day for 1-67 AR and 7.14 hours (100 hrs / 14 days) for

previous units.

These discrepancies will be highlighted further in the next section as the

researcher looks at cost savings associated with NTC operations.

Cost JP/gal13.00$ 7,521$ 5,667$ 1,854$

50.00$ 28,925$ 21,795$ 7,130$

400.00$ 231,400$ 174,360$ 57,040$

Cost Savings Using LV 100-5

Cost/BFD Using LV 100-5

Cost/BFD Using AGT 1500

Daily Savings in Various Deployment Scenarios

42

2. National Training Center Scenario According to the data in Figure 14, 1-67 AR tanks traveled an average of 638 miles per

tank in their twenty-one day rotation. The researcher needed to translate this mileage

traveled into number of galloons consumed during the rotation for estimation purposes.

In order to do this the researcher used the Battlefield Day numbers as a point of

reference. In the BFD scenarios each tank traveled 140.65 miles during the day ((3.4

hours * 24.9 mph) + (3.333 hours * 16.8 mph)). When comparing the miles traveled to

the total gallons consumed for the day, the researcher comes up with .261723 miles per

gallon for the AGT 1500 and .3226657 miles per gallon for the LV 100-5. It is with these

rough estimates that the researcher developed the following cost estimates for the twenty-

one day NTC scenario:

Figure 18. NTC Fuel Cost Savings. (After: DSB Report, 2001)

These data show that a tank battalion could directly save $20,258 in fuel costs

alone at $1 per gallon during a twenty-one day wartime scenario. The Defense Science

Board Report estimates that this fuel-efficient engine would save the Army almost

$264,000 over the same time frame. Although this is a good estimate in light of the

training environment and relatively easy deployment arena offered at the NTC, different

MPG using BFD

EstimateDistance (miles)

Gallons Consumed Per Tank

Gallons Per Battalion

Cost of Fuel using $1/Gallon

Cost using DSB estimate of $13/Gallon

AGT 1500 0.261723 638 2438 107258 107,258$ 1,394,360$

LV 100-5 0.322666 638 1977 87000 87,000$ 1,131,003$

Savings using LV 100-5 Engine 20,258$ 263,356$

Estimated Savings During 21-Day NTC Rotation

43

estimates of the true cost to deliver fuel in other environments may be more realistic.

Figure 19 outlines the possible cost savings where delivery and handling are much more

difficult at costs from $50 to $400 per gallon.

Figure 19. Savings in Less Optimal Deployment Conditions. (After: DSB Report, 2001)

The savings associated with such scenarios, as can be envisioned in the rapidly

changing environment we see today, are indeed substantial. An $8.1 million dollar

savings can be achieved with increased fuel efficiency in the most costly delivery

scenario over the same 21-day combat scenario.

3. Life Cycle Implications for the Tank Battalion Much of the earlier analysis focused on the one-time costs saved during a day or

an NTC rotation. The researcher wanted to look into the longer-term savings associated

with the move to the LV 100-5. As noted in Chapter 3, the researcher contacted an

M1A1 tank battalion and asked their staff point of contact to give their yearly mileage.

1-68 Armor averaged a total of 965 miles for one year of training that included an NTC

rotation. When projected over 10 years this mileage totaled 424,600 miles for the entire

battalion. When using the NTC MPG estimates discussed in Figure 18, the following

estimates of savings achieved by using the LV 100-5 over the AGT 1500 were

discovered:




AGT 1500 1,394,360$ 5,362,922$ 42,903,375$

LV 100-5 1,131,000$ 4,350,000$ 34,800,000$

Total Savings 263,360$ 1,012,922$ 8,103,375$

Savings in Less Optimal Deployment Conditions

44

Figure 20. Life Cycle Cost Savings Per Battalion. (After: DSB Report, 2001)

Over a ten-year period, the average tank battalion may save a total of $175.2

million in fuel costs by switching to the LV 100-5 engine. This estimate uses the $13 per

gallon cost estimate to handle and deliver fuel as espoused in the DSB report. The net

present value (NPV) of $175.3 million over 10 years at a 7% discount rate is $123

million. When considered over a 25-year period, the total savings jumps to $438 million

($175m * 2.5). The NPV of $438 million over 25 years at a 7% discount rate is $204

million.

C. EFFECT ON OTHER UNITS USING BFD CALCULATIONS When looking at the numbers expressed above, the researcher wanted to further

explore the Defense Science Board claim of a cost of $13-$400 per gallon from well to

tank and see if this cost could relate to changes in force structure due to the potential

savings. In order to do this, the researcher looked at the gallons of fuel saved and how

that might impact these units.

Fuel Cost Saved Per Battalion Over Ten-Year Life Cycle

MPG Distance (miles)



Cost Per Battalion at $13/Gallon

AGT 1500 0.261723 424,600 1,622,326 71,382,339 927,970,411$

LV 100-5 0.322666 424,600 1,315,913 57,900,173 752,702,255$

Difference 306,413 13,482,166 175,268,156$

45

Figure 21. BFD Gallons of Fuel Saved. (After: DSB Report, 2001)

1. Battalion Support Platoon Figure 21 indicates that a battalion can save 6,274 gallons of JP-8 and the cost to

deliver it in one BFD scenario. When considering that an M978 Support Platoon fueler

holds 2,200 gallons of fuel, this saves the Support Platoon approximately three fuelers

worth of use per BFD scenario.

As noted in the section concerning doctrine, the Support Platoon fuelers fuel a

Tank Battalion two times during the day and have one or two fuelers dedicated as

standby and the Combat Trains Command Post. This requires the activity of six fuelers

twice a day (two per line company). The decrease in supply needed by 6,274 gallons

indicates the possibility that a Support Platoon could reduce the number of fuelers

required on one of the two missions per day saving almost six hours of manpower and

equipment use. This decrease in asset use increases the flexibility of logistics leaders in

employing their assets to best support the battalion at critical times and locations.

There is a possibility for one to interpret this data and suggest the elimination of

one M978 from the Support Platoon MTOE. The cost savings could be enormous:

two soldiers at a cost of $100,000 each per year = $200,000 two slots at 77F Training school at a cost of $12,672 each = $25,344 one M978 at $237,210

This savings seems a possibility for the “older” M1A1 battalions with an MTOE

of 12 M978s per Support Platoon. The reduction in fuelers from 12 to 11 per battalion

still leaves enough fuelers, even at a 90% Operational Readiness (OR) rate to accomplish

Gallons per BFD

Tanks in a Battalion

Gallons Used per BN

AGT 1500 578.5 44 25,454

LV 100-5 435.9 44 19,180

Difference 142.6 6,274

Gallons of Fuel Saved per BFD

46

the mission. The previous analysis, however, only covers certain “one-time” cost savings

and doesn’t cover the possible recurring savings possible by reduction of one HEMTT.

For example, over a twenty-year life cycle of the tank, the reduction in one HEMTT can

save:

two soldiers at 100,000 per year for 20 years = $4,000,000 two slots at 77F Training school over 20 year Life Cycle = $126,720 one M978, 20-year Life Cycle Cost = $1,000,000

This indicates a 20-year savings of upwards of $5.1 million with the reduction of one

M978.

The researcher does not believe that the fuel savings warrant any further

reductions to M1A2 battalions operating under CSS redesign with 9 M978s per support

platoon. This particular unit seems to have just enough fuelers available to accomplish

the mission and further reductions would reduce effectiveness of the unit. The major

problem is that further reduction would not take into account the various maintenance

problems that inevitably hamper any military operation. At an operational readiness rate

of 90%, a Support Platoon may only be operating with 8 fuelers at the start of an

operation and this puts and inordinate strain on the logistics system.

2. Forward Support Battalion When related to the Forward Support Battalion, a decrease in consumption of

over 6,200 gallons of fuel per day saves the time and effort used to refuel two of the

M969 fuel trucks in support of Brigade operations. When considering our data estimate

of 3 hours to travel doctrinal distance and resupply a Battalion Support Platoon, the fuel

savings offered by the LV 100-5 saves 12 man hours and gives the FSB commander

greater flexibility in responding to other Brigade support requirements.

There is room under the BFD scenario to suggest the elimination of one M969

and its associated costs. Again, the savings are enormous:

2 soldiers at a cost of $100,000 each per year = $200,000 2 77F training slots = $25,344 1 M969 = $90,610 1 M932A1 Prime Mover = $86,205

47

As noted in the discussion with the HEMTT savings, this analysis only covers

certain “one-time” cost savings and doesn’t cover the possible recurring savings possible

by reduction of one M969. For example, over a twenty-year life cycle of the tank, the

reduction in one HEMTT can save:

2 soldiers at 100,000 per year for 20 years = $4,000,000 2 slots at 77F Training school over 20 year Life Cycle = $126,720 1 M969 and M931 Prime Mover, 20 year Life Cycle Cost = $1,000,000

This indicates a 20-year savings of upwards of $5.1 million with the reduction of one

M969 tanker.

These savings depend on the unit operating in a BFD scenario, but show the

possible effect of movement to a LV 100-5 engine on the logistics system.

D. EFFECT ON OTHER UNITS USING NTC CALCULATIONS As noted earlier, the BFD calculations differ significantly with the data collected

at the NTC from operational units. The major difference is that the actual unit at the

NTC maneuvers over less distance and operates for fewer hours than the scenario

generated in the BFD calculation. The NTC estimate is noted below in Figure 22.

Figure 22. NTC Gallons of Fuel Saved. (After: DSB Report, 2001)

The NTC data modified by the researcher show significantly less savings than the

BFD calculations. The gallons saved per battalion drop to 965 gallons per day. The

MPG using BFD

EstimateDistance (miles)



Gallons Per Day

per Battalion

AGT 1500 0.261723 638 2,438 107,258 5,108

LV 100-5 0.322666 638 1,977 87,000 4,143

Difference 460 20,258 965

Gallons Saved Per Day Using NTC Estimate

48

savings over the entire 21-day rotation is still an impressive 20,258 gallons, compared

with that used to supply tanks with the current AGT 1500 engine.

1. Battalion Support Platoon This 964 gallons of fuel saved per day in the NTC environment basically reflects

the cost and time required for ½ of an M978 fueler. Although still significant, this

amount of savings is not enough to justify any MTOE adjustment. It may save the man-

hours associated with one less LOGPAC, however, and significantly increase the

flexibility of the HHC commander and support platoon leader in their support of the

battalion. The use of two fuelers per LOGPAC is not solely a function of quantity of

fuel demanded by the unit but is also a function of the time required to fill a company

with only one as compared to two fuelers.

The movement of the Force XXI M1A2 units to CSS redesign with nine M978

fuelers per Support Platoon indicates that doctrine is already anticipating increased fuel

efficiency and situational awareness with the LV 100-5 and other improvements. This

leaves room for the Support Platoon to operate at 90% readiness and still supply two

fuelers per Company plus two on standby at the Combat Trains. This leaves little margin

for error and certainly no more room for M978 reduction at the Battalion Support

Platoon.

2. Forward Support Battalion As noted in discussing the NTC data and its effect on the Battalion Support

Platoon, the data does not support the consideration of adjusting the MTOE due to

savings associated with the LV 100-5. The 965 fewer gallons required per day to

resupply the Support Platoon, while significant, does not indicate the need to adjust the

MTOE.

In addition, the FSB supports the entire maneuver Brigade. Although an Armor

Battalion is a significant portion of the Brigade, there are Mechanized Infantry, Engineer,

Aviation, and Support Battalions that also demand significant fuel support. The largest

fuel users are typically the attached aviation assets. The FSB is required by doctrine to

49

support these helicopters as well as the organic maneuver units. Any reduction in one of

the eleven tankers may significantly impact support of such units.

As mentioned in the analysis of the HEMTT, further reductions of fuel assets may

not adequately consider the likelihood that the FSB is operating at less than 100%

operational readiness. If the FSB loses one or two assets to enemy fire or maintenance,

their ability to provide fuel support is severely hindered. These types of doctrinal

considerations make it difficult to recommend decreasing these types of assets unless the

fuel savings makes more dramatic increases.

E. UNDER ARMOR AUXILLARY POWER UNIT The data collected indicated that the tanks measured were not equipped with the

Under Armor Auxiliary Power Unit (UAAPU). The researcher notes that once added to

the tank, the fuel economy will again increase dramatically. The UUAPU reduces the

amount of time a tank now has to run to keep its batteries fully charged. Currently the

tank must run at idle every 20 minutes to keep the batteries charged and prevent the need

to “jump start” the tank. This is significant because the tank must currently run at idle,

where it consumes the most fuel, in order to charge its batteries.

The inclusion of the UAAPU when pursuing further studies is critical to get a

better estimate of fuel use and potential savings. The result of the lack of an UAAPU is

that estimates about future savings may be somewhat inflated over actual savings

achieved once the UAAPU is included.

F. SUMMARY This chapter initially analyzed the fuel cost savings given the BFD scenario. The

amount of such savings is amplified as consideration is giving to the different types of

deployment situations that a unit may enter. This analysis continued with the look into a

twenty-one day “wartime” scenario at the NTC. Although the savings are shown to be

significant, when considering different scenarios, where the cost of handling fuel

increases, the implications of a more fuel-efficient engine are amplified.

50

The researcher then analyzed the cost savings possible when considering more

than a “onetime” deployment or scenario. When projecting fuel savings over a ten and

25-year period for an “average” Tank Battalion, the savings are extraordinary.

The analysis then focused on possible MTOE adjustments due to fuel savings in

both the BFD and NTC scenarios. Although the BFD scenario indicates the possibility of

reducing Support Platoon fuelers, the actual NTC training data indicates that this is not

definitive. In neither case did the data indicate a reduction in M969 tankers at the FSB

was warranted. The primary reasons are that the amount of fuel saved is not enough and

doctrinal considerations do not permit such an adjustment under the current MTOE. The

chapter concludes with the note that the lack of UAAPU prevented a better estimate of

the true savings that can be achieved with the LV 100-5.

51

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. CONCLUSIONS For this section the researcher will restate his primary and secondary thesis

questions and summarize their answers.

1. Secondary Question I

What are the histories and specifications of the AGT 1500 and LV 100-5 engines?

The AGT 1500 turbine tank engine entered service as part of the M1 tank in 1980

and despite being 1960’s era technology, has served the M1 tank family well throughout

its history. The Army selected a turbine engine because US data indicated that when

compared to diesel engines, the turbine had a longer life cycle, was less costly to

maintain, ran on multiple types of fuel, had lower noise and smoke signatures, while still

delivering the necessary horsepower to propel the tank. Fuel efficiency was neither a

priority nor a major consideration. Overhauls of the engines began in the mid 1980’s and

continue to this day to keep performance up to standard. Overhauled AGT 1500’s even

provide the power in the Army’s “new” M1A2 SEP and AIM tanks. Unfortunately

continued overhauls without significant upgrades have degraded engine life to low levels.

Currently, the AGT 1500 “constitutes over half of the Abrams’ Operations and Support

(O&S) costs and makes the Abrams tank the Army’s most expensive ground system to

operate.” (Skaff, 2000) Included in this O&S cost were the increased fuel requirements

demanded by a turbine engine in comparison to its diesel predecessors. Several studies

showed that in extreme cases, the AGT 1500 consumed fuel at a rate 70% higher than

previous diesel engine tanks.

The LV 100-5 is a 1990’s technology turbine engine that builds on lessons

learned from previously attempted engine upgrades and offers a lighter, less logistically

burdensome, and more fuel-efficient turbine engine. Despite the need for an engine that

increased reliability and performance, the Army wanted an engine that reduced O&S

costs, including fuel use. The LV 100-5, developed in partnership between GE and

Honeywell, was selected over other competitors in November 2000. The LV 100-5

52

offered commonality with the Crusader artillery system, lighter weight and smaller size

than competitors, and aimed to reduce fuel use by up to 30%. The capabilities of the LV

100-5 have been proven in tests by GE/Honeywell and were verified in the October 2001

Critical Design Review (CDR). In fact GE/Honeywell representatives indicate that

possibilities exist for additional fuel consumption savings as the engine design continues

to be refined. The Abrams Product Manager outlines the engine production in two

phases. In phase I, GE/Honeywell is to produce 13 prototypes for testing. These

prototypes are due beginning in May 2002. In phase II, full production begins and the

request is for 2,709 engines beginning in 2003 and continuing for eight years.

2. Secondary Question II

What is the” true” cost of fuel and what are the logistical support requirements

for both engines in combat and training environments?

The Defense Energy Support Center indicates that the Standard Price of Fuel is

$1.00 per gallon. This is the cost that is used as input in calculating the yearly O&S cost

demanded by the Abrams tank (and other combat systems). However, the researcher

used a recent Defense Science Board report that found that the “true cost” of delivering

and handling fuel is indeed much higher. The DSB report indicated that this true cost is

also extremely scenario-dependant and may fluctuate depending on the mission and type

of deployment. To this end, the researcher used estimates ranging from $13 to $400 per

gallon to estimate the true cost of fuel. This staggering adjustment is necessary to

account for the personnel and equipment costs burdened on all services to get the fuel

into theater and to the unit in need. It became evident that claims of the AGT 1500

making up “some 64% of all O&S costs for the Abrams” are actually much higher if the

DSB estimates of the true cost of fuel are used.

The researcher went into detail outlining the equipment required to support a

battalion of 44 tanks in a combat environment. The tank battalion currently has either a

force of 12 M978 support platoon fuelers in direct support of the battalion or a total of 9

support platoon M978 fuelers for the M1A2 battalions operating in CSS redesign. Each

M978 fueler normally carries only 2,200 gallons of its 2,500-gallon capacity due to safety

53

restrictions. In addition to the organic fuel assets, a battalion has the support of a

Forward Support Company (FSC) that provides fuel to the entire maneuver brigade.

Each FSC within the support battalion has eleven M969 5,000-gallon tankers to support

the brigade. Although the M969 has a capacity of 5,000 gallons, it normally only carries

3,500 gallons for safety purposes. The FSC receives its resupply from the Corps

refueling assets.

Each company receives its fuel twice a day during LOGPAC resupply operations.

During a LOGPAC, the Company First Sergeant (1SG) guides the Support Platoon

fuelers to the company area and conducts resupply via the tailgate or service station

method. Support Platoon fuelers are then taken back to a consolidation point where fuel

is cross-leveled and empty fuelers are moved to FSC refuel sites where M969 tankers

refuel the M978 support platoon trucks. Each fuel truck in the FSC and Support Platoon

is designed to be manned by two MOS 77F petroleum operator specialists who dispense

the fuel and maintain the equipment. During these resupply operations it is estimated that

the company LOGPAC takes three hours for the round-trip and the resupply from the

FSC takes an additional three hours, round-trip.

3. Secondary Question III What are the cost savings and other benefits obtained by upgrading to the LV

100-5 engine?

In terms of overall fuel economy, the research showed the LV 100-5, at the

current stage of its development, to be 26.75% more fuel efficient overall than the AGT

1500. This fact was confirmed during the LV 100-5’s Critical Design Review (CDR) in

October 2001. Figures 6 and 7 in Chapter III depict that in one 12-hour Battlefield Day

(BFD) scenario the AGT 1500 uses 578 gallons and the LV 100-5 uses 435 gallons. Of

particular interest within this fuel reduction was the performance of the engine at idle

where the LV 100-5 displayed a 56% reduction in fuel use compared to the AGT 1500.

When further analyzing fuel cost in the BFD scenarios, it was found that use of

the LV 100-5 saves $1,854 per day using the $13 per gallon estimate. When adjusting for

54

other possible deployment scenarios, the daily savings increased to $7,130 ($50 per

gallon estimate) and to $57,040 ($400 per gallon estimate).

This thesis does not address the total savings achieved through the reduced

Operations and Support (O&S) cost associated with the LV 100-5 due to reduced

maintenance requirements and reduced time between overhauls, although this number is

likely significant.

4. Primary Question

What is the effect of a 25-30% fuel savings with the LV 100-5 engine on the

logistical support of an M1 Tank Battalion in a combat scenario and during its life-cycle

and how might this affect overall force structure at Brigade level?

When comparing the engines in the BFD scenario, the use of the LV 100-5

directly saves the Army $6,274 dollars worth of fuel for one tank battalion. When

factoring in the Defense Science Board “true cost” of fuel for delivery from well to tank

of $13 per gallon, the savings achieved by using the LV 100-5 jumps to $81,567 per day

when supplying the tank battalion.

When taking data from the NTC where the Army conducts its most realistic

wartime training, the savings are also shown to be significant. During the 21-day rotation

of 1-67 AR, the Army could have saved $263,356 if they had use of the LV 100-5 engine

in their battalion of tanks. This figure applies the $13 per gallon cost estimate espoused

by the Defense Science Board. Since the NTC is a training environment where the

transport and handling of fuel is relatively easy, the researcher then adjusted the cost of

fuel to $50 and $400 in simulation of a more rigorous deployment environment. In these

cases the savings for a battalion over 21 days varied from over $1 million to $8 million.

Based on the data and analysis the researcher believes that there are significant

economies achieved with movement to the LV 100-5 engine over the AGT 1500.

Distinction must be made, however, between the extent of the savings garnered between

the Battlefield Day (BFD) estimates and the National Training Center (NTC) estimates

for proper perspective.

55

When considered over a ten-year life cycle the data showed the possibility of

saving over $175 million in fuel handling costs for a Tank Battalion. To reach this

number the researcher calculated the total mileage driven in one year by an average tank

battalion and projected a similar OPTEMPO over ten years. The $13 per gallon estimate

of fuel handling cost was used in this case. Considering the Abrams is expected to

remain in service until 2031, the researcher estimated a battalion fit with the LV 100-5 in

2006, with 25-years of service remaining, may save upwards of $438 million in

comparison with a tank with the AGT 1500.

The research showed that a unit could save over $462,000 in one time costs by

reducing one M978 from a Battalion Support Platoon and upwards of $5.1 million when

considering an M978’s 20-year life cycle. The adjustment of MTOE in Force XXI units

to reflect CSS redesign of nine M978’s per Support Platoon indicate that this savings may

already have been considered. The eventual reduction in M978’s in the older M1A1

battalions from 12 to 9, once the battalions are upgraded with an LV 100-5 and a

UAAPU, saves an additional $15.3 million over 20 years. Further reductions are not at

all justified in the M1A2 SEP battalions operating under CSS redesign with only nine

M978’s in their Support Platoon. The data does indicate, however, that the use of the LV

100-5 significantly increases the flexibility of logistics leaders to better support the

Battalion and the Brigade.

Although the research showed the possibility of saving $402,159 in one time costs

or $5.1 million with the reduction of one M969 from the FSB, this is not recommended.

Doctrine permits eleven M969’s per FSB to support the entire Brigade and all of its

subordinate elements of which the Armor Battalion is only one part. The reduced burden

offered by the tanks with the LV 100-5 allows commanders to focus their fuel priorities

on the units that need it most. It also saves precious man-hours and equipment wear and

tear for up to six hours per day. The hourly cost savings of such reductions is difficult to

quantify but still important, especially in combat environments where the situation is

fluid.

56

B. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DOD As noted in the Defense Science Board report, the Army needs to continue to

focus efforts to reduce the burden placed on our logistics system with its fuel

requirements. Although the Army consumes only about “5.7 percent of the DoD’s total

fuel,” (DSB, 2001) the cost savings achieved by reducing the burden on the Army, Air

Force, and Navy logistics assets to transport this fuel to theater with increasingly fuel-

efficient vehicles is significant. The Army Resource Lab (ARL) estimated that increased

fuel efficiency across the Army could enable some of the $3.4 billion in annual POL

logistics to be diverted to other purposes. (DSB, 2001) Thus it is in the DoD’s best

interest, especially in this era of declining budgets, to continue to pursue such fuel

efficiencies as achieved by the LV 100-5 engine. The DSB mentions a desire of the

Army to achieve a 75% efficiency improvement for future combat platforms and systems.

The implications of such savings would be huge in direct fuel and infrastructure costs.

Each system, as it computes LCC needs to address methods to reduce the logistics

burden on the system. One method is to calculate the “true cost” of fuel per the DSB

report and use that cost to guide future estimates. The DSB report noted that the Army’s

estimate of Total Ownership Cost (TOC) for selected systems are based on the “standard

price of fuel rather than the cost of delivering fuel to the battlefield. No analysis was

presented that estimated the POL logistics assets that could be eliminated or troops that

could be redirected to combat functions if fuel efficiency benefits were achieved.” (DSB,

2001) Using the true cost of fuel as proposed in the DSB report as calculated in this

thesis will give planners a better picture of the true TOC associated with selected

systems.

Second, the Army needs to continue to pursue R&D efforts to find methods to

reduce fuel burden for all systems. Investment in technologies that help equipment reap

savings like those achieved with the LV 100-5 should continue to be a focus for DoD as a

method to reduce TOC across the Army. The incorporation of the LV 100-5 into the

Crusader artillery system is a start in the right direction. Technologies need to be

investigated that reduce fuel use and increase efficiency among all of the Army’s top fuel

users. The DSB report notes that only two of the top ten fuel users are actual “combat

57

platforms,” (the Abrams and the Apache) while the others are trucks and utility

helicopters (UH-60).

In particular for the Abrams tank, the UUAPU is a critical addition to the current

system to further reduce undue fuel burden. The sooner this system is incorporated with

the LV 100-5, the greater the fuel and cost savings for the Army.

C. SUGGESTED FURTHER STUDIES This study only scratches the surface of possible areas of study concerning O&S

costs associated with the Army’s mechanized fleet. There are many areas that would

benefit Program Shops in justifying costs to implement less logistically burdensome

systems for the Army.

What is the combined effect of the Under Armor Auxiliary Power Unit (UUAPU)

and the LV 100-5 on the Army logistics system over a set time period?

What is the total cost savings associated with the LV 100-5 when considering all

O&S costs compared to the AGT 1500?

Is the Defense Science Board’s (DSB) estimate of the “true cost of fuel” for the

Army the best measure of this logistical cost?

What other methods are possible in selected systems to reduce the total LCC

associated with fuel use?

58


59

LIST OF REFERENCES

Association of the United States Army, “M1A1 Tank”, AUSA Greenbook. [http://www.ausa.org/www/greenbook.nsf/]. January 2001.

Baumgardner, Neil “Further Weight, Fuel Savings Expected in Abrams-Crusader Common Engine”, Defense Daily, 21 March 2001.

Cameron, Robert S., “Pushing the Envelope of Battlefield Superiority: American Tank Development from the 1970s to the Present”, Armor Magazine, v. 107, p. 8, Nov/Dec 1998.

CGSC ST 101-6, Combat Service Support Planning and Consumption Data, Washington DC, Department of Defense, July 2001.

Cooper, LTC Stephen P., Product Manager M1A1 Abrams, Telephone Interviews, August 2001.

CTC Handbook Website, [http://call.army.mil/ctcask/Documents/NTC%20Docs/Ch3secd.pdf]. December 2001.

Defense Energy Supply Center, Website. [http://www.desc.dla.mil/]. October 2001.

Department of Defense, “More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden”, Defense Science Board Report, p. 39-49, May 2001.

Editors, Business Wire, “U.S. Army Selects Honeywell-General Electric Engine To Power Self-Propelled Artillery And Tanks.” [http://www.businesswire.com/webbox/bw.092800/202722375.htm]. 28 September 2000.

Editors, Jane’s International Defense Review, “US Army plays its ACCE on Abrams/Crusader Power”, Jane’s International Defense Review, v. 34, 20 June 2001.

Editors, “General Dynamics Awarded $92 Million ACCE Integration Contract”, Defense Daily, v. 211, p.4, 24 July 2001.

Erwin, Sandra I., “Engine Competition Fuels Diesel vs. Turbine Debate”, National Defense Industrial Association Magazine. [http://www.ndia.org/natdef/2000April/feature2.htm]. April 2000.

Erwin, Sandra I., “Selection of Turbine for Abrams-Crusader both Praised and Criticized”, National Defense Industrial Association Magazine, v. 85, p. 12. November 2000.

60

Gilliam, CPT Kennon S., Commander HHC, 1-68 AR BN, Fort Carson, CO, E-mail Correspondence, November-December 2001.

General Dynamics Land Systems, Programs Web page, [http://www.gdls.com/programs.html]. October 2001. Headquarters, Department of the Army, “Tank Platoon,” FM 3-20.15, November 2001. Headquarters, Department of the Army, “Forward Support Battalion,” FM 63-20, 26 February 1990. Headquarters, Department of the Army, “Tactics and Techniques for Combined Arms Heavy Forces: Armored Brigade, Battalion Task Force, and Company Team,” FM 71-123, 30 September 1992. Heydrich, Hans, LV 100-5 Project, Honeywell Engines and Systems division, Written Correspondence, November 2001.

Hitchcock, Jennifer, Lead Engineer, Team ACCE, E-mail Correspondence, November 2001. Hudgins, CPT Reed E., Chief, Advanced Petroleum and Water Division, US Army QM School, Fort Lee, VA, E-mail Correspondence, November – December 2001.

Martin, CPT Michael, FSC Commander, 3rd Brigade, 4ID, Fort Carson, CO, E-mail Correspondence, December 2001.

Miller, Larry, Field Representative, Cobro Corporation, Telephone Interview, 15 December 2001. Nordhougen, Greg, SAIC Support Contractor, PM-HTV, E-mail Correspondence, February 2002.

Ogorkiewicz, Richard “New US Tank Engine is Making Thirsty Work,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, , v.35, p.9, 31 January 2001.

Schutter, MAJ Jeffrey D., Assistant Project Manager M1A1 Abrams, Telephone Interviews, August 2001.

Siuru, William, “A Single Battle Fuel”, Mechanical Engineering Magazine, v. 10, p. 146, April 1989.

Skaff, Gregg, Abrams Tank Engine Information Paper, TRADOC System Manager Abrams, May 2000.

61

Skaff, Gregg, Under Armor Auxiliary Power Unit Information Paper, TRADOC System Manager Abrams, May 2000. Smith, MAJ Troy A., Battalion Executive Officer, 1-67 AR BN, Fort Hood, Texas, E-mail Correspondence, January 2002.

US Army Combined Arms Support Command (CASCOM) Web page, [http://www.cascom.army.mil]. December 2001.

US Army Logistics Management College Web page, [http://www.almc.army.mil]. December 2001.

US Army TACOM , Solicitation, Offer and Award, Solicitation # DAAE07-00-R-N061. [http://contracting.tacom.army.mil/research/DAAE0700RN061/00rn061.pdf]. 8 March 2000.

US Air Force, Maxwell, AFB, “M1 Abrams”, Cadre Studies. [http://www.cadre.maxwell.af.mil/warfarestudies/iwac/IWCBT/m1a1.htm]. July 1996.

Wawro, MAJ Joseph, Battalion Executive Officer, 1-68 AR BN, Fort Carson, Colorado, E-mail and Telephone Correspondence, February 2002.

62


63

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST

1. Defense Technical Information Center Ft. Belvoir, Virginia

2. Dudley Knox Library Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California

3. Dr. Keebom Kang Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA

4. Prof. Michael Boudreau Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA

5. Dr. David Lamm

Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA

6. Jennifer Hitchcock

Abrams-Crusader Common Engine Detroit Arsenal Warren, MI